He doesn't have to explain Ellers. There are many articles you can look up yourself that are on this topic. On the face of it ID is not a bad idea, but dig deeper and is it necessary? No is the fast answer as voter fraud not an issue. Not now or for past 100+ years. Unless of course you have evidence that lets say Atlee ousted Churchill in 1945 in nefarious circumstaces. Was he aided by some dodgy votes for example? Perhaps Clement Attlee outdid him in 1945 and introduced the NHS under Labour as a cruel joke. Do you support the NHS Ellers or was that a historical Labour blunder in your eyes?
And before you say it...yes I know Churchill won again in the 50's! My point being voting ID not necessary. I think our electorate can decide and a broadchurch with no restrictions is surely good. We are not a country of disenfranchisement.
'The Master' speaks. Whatever one thinks of his record in Govt, Blair is a first-rate political mind, and IMO this analysis is superb. As I read through I felt each paragraph touched on one debate or other that has taken place on this thread. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/05/tony-blair-without-total-change-labour-will-die
I read an edited version and it is a really interesting read, particularly as regards the struggle between the hardliners and moderates in the Labour Party, and the changes that are taking place in our society which makes the old left views of the unions etc worthless. But the elephant in the room is Brexit, not mentioned, and nor was the fact that Labour, Corbyn, Starmer and Blair himself were all prepared to ignore a democratic vote and demand a second referendum. They all misjudged the mood of the country, so perhaps it's not that surprising that Blair decided to overlook it in his article.
Good point. Perhaps deliberately making the point that it's also how Labour should now approach Brexit? Don't laud it's (perceived) benefits [disingenuous, people will see through that] and don't moan about it [broken record, not a proven vote winner]. Leave it in the past and plan for a 2024 election that won't be about Brexit, and get in a position to answer the 'real questions' which he poses on technological change, culture clashes and the new role of the state. Edit - no idea why this is in strikethrough and no idea how to change it
Yes, I think Starmer and Blair just don't want to go there. We're out of the EU - forget we were ever in it (!) and move on. However, if Labour ever get into power, the hard left would press for another referendum and/or free movement of people from and to the EU
If you'll forgive the pedantry, as your broad point is correct, I think a lot of the hard left were actually quite pro Brexit. Comrade Corbyn perhaps a case in point. But yes, I think a lot of the soft left would want Starmer to keep on being vocal about it - and I think that's a good example of the challenge underpinning Blair's article. This is a proper rebuild job, not a quick fix like a change of leader.
A lot of traditional Labour voters supported Brexit certainly, and Corbyn was conflicted. Momentum was neutral originally but then went on to support Labour's second referendum call. Yes, I guess you could say the call to rejoin the EU could come from anywhere in the Labour movement. A rebuild job certainly. How easy is it, though, to rebuild a party that is effectively made up of two parties anyway? Not...